Date:  Thu, 26 Feb 1998 20:54:13 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199802270154.UAA00261@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Subject:      Re: Summary so far on DJUNO
X-To:         lojban <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-UIDL: e0f621dd2e969b5067931e33b5b734b5
Status: O
X-Mozilla-Status: 8011
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Mar 02 13:32:06 1998
X-From-Space-Address: -

cu'u la kris
>>> Isn't it true that there's always
>>>an implied "fi'o selje'u zo'e" in every sentence: "with-metaphysics
>>> the-obvious"?
>
>Jorge:
>>In the same sense that there is an implied {cu'u zo'e}, an implied
>>{tecu'u zo'e}, etc.
>
>OK, and what about {bai zo'e}; is that always implied?

No! The speaker, the audience and the metaphysics are all
part of the background of language use. An enforcer of a given
relationship is not.

>That only makes
>sense if {zo'e} can stand for {noda} under appropriate circumstances.

No, I think {zo'e} cannot stand for {noda}. It would lead to very
weird results.

co'o mi'e xorxes